Invention Disclosure Intake

Invention Disclosure Intake

Purpose

Produce a structured first-pass invention disclosure screen that helps patent counsel quickly orient to a proposed invention, identify obvious patentability signals, and flag any urgent filing-deadline concerns. This is draft legal work product for attorney review. It is NOT a patentability opinion, NOT a prior-art search, and does NOT constitute a legal finding that any invention is patentable or patent-eligible.

Use When

• A user presents a new invention and asks whether it is worth pursuing a patent.
• An engineer, product team, or inventor needs a structured disclosure captured before meeting with patent counsel.
• A user wants to understand whether public-disclosure timing creates an urgent filing concern.
• A user needs a first-pass triage to decide whether to commission a formal patentability search and opinion.
• A user wants a structured intake document to brief patent counsel efficiently.

Required Inputs

The following information is needed to run the screen. Provide either a full written disclosure document that covers these points, or answers to each intake question individually.

• Technical essence: what the invention does and how it works, in plain language.
• Problem solved: the technical or practical problem the invention addresses, and why existing approaches fall short.
• Points of distinction: how the invention differs from known prior approaches — in the inventor's own words, without legal characterization.
• Inventors and conception date: names of all individuals who contributed to the inventive concept, and the date (or approximate date) the invention was first conceived. [CONFIRM: conception date with each named inventor]
• Public-disclosure history: any public disclosures already made — including conference presentations, papers, preprints, product launches, trade-show demonstrations, press releases, social media posts, open-source commits, or any disclosure not protected by a non-disclosure agreement — with dates and venues. If all disclosures were made under NDA, confirm the NDA was in place before disclosure. [CONFIRM: whether any disclosure was made without NDA coverage]
• Usage and commercialization status: whether the invention is already in a shipped product, a limited pilot, on the product roadmap, or described only internally or in a publication.
• Technical area: the general field or domain (e.g., software, mechanical, biotech, chemical, electrical) to help route the disclosure to the right specialist.

If a disclosure document or answers to the above questions are not provided, stop and request them. Do not proceed on a partial or half-disclosure; an incomplete intake produces an unreliable screen.

Do Not Use When

• The user wants a formal patentability opinion — that requires a registered patent professional conducting a prior-art search and rendering a legal opinion.
• The user wants a prior-art search conducted — this skill does not search patent databases or technical literature.
• The user needs patent claims drafted — claim drafting is attorney work and must not be performed by this skill.
• The user needs a freedom-to-operate analysis — whether the product can be made, used, or sold without infringing existing patents is a separate, specialized inquiry (use fto-triage).
• The matter involves trademark, copyright, or trade-secret issues as the primary IP concern — those are outside the scope of this intake.
• The invention has already been publicly disclosed without NDA and there is reason to believe the filing-deadline clock has run — route immediately to patent counsel rather than completing this screen.

Legal Safety Rules

• This screen is draft legal work product for attorney review. It is NOT a patentability opinion and NOT legal advice. Patent counsel must review and sign off before any reliance on this output.
• Do not assert that an invention "is patentable," "is novel," "is non-obvious," or "is patent-eligible." The most this screen can conclude is that the invention passes initial signals and warrants further investigation by counsel.
• Do not compute, estimate, or assert any filing deadline. Filing deadlines depend on jurisdiction-specific rules, the nature and date of any public disclosure, and facts that must be verified by patent counsel. Always flag deadline questions as [deadline verification required].
• Do not invent prior art, cite specific patents or publications as blocking art, or assert that no prior art exists. No prior-art search is conducted as part of this workflow.
• Source and citation discipline. Follow core/source-and-citation-discipline.md. Never invent legal authority, citations, quotations, statutes, cases, regulations, filing deadlines, or procedural rules. Label what is a provided source, a user-provided fact, an assumption, a legal inference, or an item requiring attorney verification, and use a citation placeholder such as [Attorney to insert authority] when no source is available. Do not name or apply specific statutes, code sections, regulations, or case law — standards for novelty, non-obviousness, subject-matter eligibility, and filing deadlines vary by jurisdiction and are always [verify jurisdiction]. Treat all model background knowledge about patent law, grace periods, and eligibility doctrine as unverified.
• Separate facts provided by the user from analytical observations and from items requiring attorney or specialist verification.
• Flag every uncertainty with [CONFIRM: ...], [VERIFY: ...], or [ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM: ...] rather than resolving it silently.
• Preserve confidentiality and privilege. Keep client-identifying details and invention specifics out of any reusable or shared template context.
• If disclosure-timing signals suggest the filing-deadline clock may already be running or may have expired, flag this prominently as [deadline verification required] and recommend immediate patent-counsel engagement before completing the rest of the screen.

Workflow

1. Orient and disclaim. Open the screen output with a clear statement that this is a first-pass invention disclosure screen, not a patentability opinion, and that no prior-art search has been conducted. Identify the date the screen is being run.

2. Confirm inputs are complete. Verify that all required inputs have been provided. If any are missing or ambiguous — particularly conception date and public-disclosure history — stop and request the missing information. Do not proceed on a partial disclosure. Record the inputs exactly as provided; do not paraphrase the technical description.

3. Screen 1 — Novelty signals. Based solely on the disclosure provided, identify whether there are self-evident novelty problems — for example, whether the inventor's own description suggests the idea has been previously published or is already in the public domain. This is not a prior-art search. Note signals only; do not conclude that novelty is present or absent. Apply [verify jurisdiction] to any jurisdiction-specific novelty standard referenced.

4. Screen 2 — Non-obviousness signals. Assess whether the disclosed invention reads, on its face, as a predictable combination or straightforward extension of approaches the inventor themselves describes as known. Flag combinations that may face non-obviousness scrutiny without asserting a legal conclusion. Apply [verify jurisdiction] to the applicable standard.

5. Screen 3 — Subject-matter eligibility signals. Identify whether the technical area or the manner in which the invention is described raises eligibility concerns (e.g., software-implemented inventions, mathematical methods, diagnostic or therapeutic methods, natural phenomena). Flag close or hard-to-call eligibility questions explicitly and note that close calls require specialist review. Apply [verify jurisdiction] to any eligibility doctrine referenced; eligibility rules vary substantially by jurisdiction and by the nature of the claimed subject matter.

6. Screen 4 — Public-disclosure and filing-deadline signals (TIME-CRITICAL). Review the public-disclosure history. If any public disclosure has occurred — even one that the inventor believes is covered by a grace period — flag [deadline verification required] and note that:

   • Some jurisdictions require absolute novelty and permit no pre-filing public disclosure.
   • Grace-period availability, scope, and duration vary by jurisdiction and disclosure type and must be verified by patent counsel.
   • Filing deadlines are not computed or estimated by this screen.
   • If disclosure timing is implicated, recommend immediate patent-counsel engagement before any other action. This flag should appear prominently in both the screen-results table and the bottom-line verdict.

7. Screen 5 — Detectability. Assess, based on the technical description, whether potential infringement of a patent covering this invention would be detectable from publicly observable products, services, or conduct. Note that low detectability is a factor that counsel may weigh in a patent-versus-trade-secret strategy discussion; this screen does not make that strategic call.

8. Screen 6 — Strategic value signals. Note any signals in the disclosure that bear on the invention's strategic importance — for example, whether it appears to be core to a product, whether it is in a crowded or fast-moving technical area, whether it has apparent licensing potential, or whether it addresses a significant competitive differentiation. This is a preliminary observation for counsel; no business judgment is rendered.

9. Emit the bottom-line verdict. Assign one of three verdicts:

   • Pursue — the disclosure passes all six screens without obvious disqualifying signals and warrants engagement of patent counsel for a formal patentability search and opinion.
   • Investigate — the disclosure raises one or more signals that require clarification or specialist input before a patentability search is warranted.
   • Decline — the disclosure shows clear and obvious barriers that make patent protection unlikely or inappropriate, in the screen's preliminary assessment.

   If any disclosure-timing concern was identified in Screen 4, add a prominent TIME-SENSITIVE flag to the verdict regardless of the overall verdict category.

10. List open questions. Enumerate all factual gaps, ambiguities, or points requiring confirmation that could affect the screen result.

11. List next steps. Recommend concrete actions — such as engaging patent counsel, clarifying the disclosure, or resolving deadline questions — ordered by urgency.

12. Assemble and label the output. Compile the full draft screen per the Output Format below, labeled as a first-pass draft for attorney review.

Output Format

Deliver the following sections in order, under a header stating: "DRAFT — Invention Disclosure Screen — For Patent Counsel Review — Not a Patentability Opinion — No Prior-Art Search Conducted."

1. Screen Summary

• Invention title or short descriptor (as provided).
• Inventors and conception date (as provided; flag [CONFIRM: ...] if uncertain).
• Technical area.
• Date screen conducted.
• Bottom-line verdict: Pursue / Investigate / Decline — with [TIME-SENSITIVE — deadline verification required] if any disclosure-timing concern was identified.

2. Disclosure Under Screen

• The invention description as provided, reproduced verbatim or with minimal paraphrase for clarity, clearly identified as the source material for the screen. Do not editorialize or reframe the technical description.

3. Screen Results

Present as a table with four columns: Screen, Verdict Signal (Pass / Flag / Unclear), Note, and Verification Required.

Each "Note" cell should contain a single concise observation. Each "Verification Required" cell should reference the applicable placeholder ([verify jurisdiction], [deadline verification required], [CONFIRM: ...], etc.).

4. Open Questions

• Bulleted list of factual gaps, ambiguities, and unresolved inputs, each labeled with the responsible party for resolution (inventor, counsel, or business stakeholder).

5. Next Steps

• Numbered list of recommended actions, ordered by urgency. If Screen 4 raised a disclosure-timing concern, the first next step must be immediate patent-counsel engagement.

6. Assumptions

• All facts assumed or inferred from context, clearly distinguished from facts stated by the user.

7. Attorney Verification Items

• Bulleted list of items patent counsel must confirm or resolve before the screen result can be relied upon for any decision.

Attorney Verification Checklist

• The invention description is complete and accurately reflects the full scope of the inventive concept; no material details have been omitted.
• All inventors have been identified and the conception date confirmed with each named inventor.
• The public-disclosure history has been verified in full, including whether any disclosure was made without NDA coverage.
• Filing deadlines have been assessed by patent counsel based on verified disclosure dates and applicable jurisdiction-specific rules — [deadline verification required] placeholders have all been resolved.
• The jurisdiction(s) in which patent protection is being considered have been confirmed, and the applicable novelty, non-obviousness, and subject-matter eligibility standards verified for each [verify jurisdiction] flag.
• Subject-matter eligibility has been evaluated by a patent specialist where flagged as a close or hard-to-call question.
• No prior-art conclusion has been drawn from this screen; a formal patentability search and opinion has been commissioned where the verdict is Pursue.
• The patent-versus-trade-secret strategic question has been addressed by counsel if detectability concerns were flagged.
• No legal authority, statutory text, or case law has been asserted or relied upon from this screen without independent verification.
• Client has been advised that this screen is not a patentability opinion and does not establish that the invention is patentable, novel, non-obvious, or patent-eligible.
• All [CONFIRM: ...], [VERIFY: ...], [ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM: ...], and [deadline verification required] placeholders have been resolved before the screen result is acted upon.